Quote from: FredericBastiat on August 30, 2011, 05:07:24 PM

If the constitution was a contract for anything other than a non-aggression pact (i.e. prevent injury, slavery, and plunder), then no. You must acquire consent, free of coercion, before you negotiate with me for my property and life. Regarding their decendants, the same is true. The rebels who oppose are on the same footing as everybody else. Isn't that the beauty of equity in law? It doesn't matter if you're short or tall, black or white, jew or gentile, it still works. True laws are immutable.

I'm talking about Libyans in Martyr's Square in Tripoli cheering and happy because the rebellion has succeeded. Should they be bound by the proto-government's consitution & legislation? Alternatively, do you think every country should individually interview each of its citizens to see which laws they agree to and which they don't? Then you'd have to draw up a great big table so everybody would know exactly how to behave around everyone else. But then, you'd have to be careful around me, 'cos I really hate it when people honk the horn for no reason - it damages my eardrums and that's violence against me, so I would consider myself to have the right to confiscate your car and shoot you then.

And then, regarding the children not yet born, what - should the country organise a new survey every generation to interview people that weren't around the first time? Of course, then people born just after the interviews would have to wait their turn, so maybe you should do it every 5 years maybe? That could take care of people who change their minds too.

And then, what about those opposing the popular uprising - should they be cordoned off in some corner of the country set aside just for that purpose?

A set of laws is nothing other that the rules by which members of a society, at some point in the past, agreed to be bound. The set of laws generally follows cultural and historical precedents in order to be as acceptable as possible to as many people as possible and, fortunately, they generally include mechanisms by which laws can be added, changed, and revoked, according as the culture and moral basis of the society evolves.

In the case of IP, as someone here (hawker?) said, it's telling that just about every country on the planet has adopted some form of IP rights. The discussion we're having has moved from a justification of IP and patent law, to question the very validity of law itself. So it's also telling that just about every country on the planet also has a solid legal system (yeah, I know about Somalia - let's count how many R&D innovations come out of there /before/ some government manages to bootstrap itself and institute a country-wide legal system).

Quote from: FredericBastiat on August 30, 2011, 05:07:24 PM

Slavery has been around for thousands of years, and your point..? Since when does the "when" and "how long" matter here? Isn't wrong wrong, and right right regardless of the when? It would seem obvious to anybody, that laws are independent of cronology.

No. That's *exactly* where you're mistaken. Right and wrong are only what are *perceived* as right and wrong. Homosexuality is perceived as wrong by many people, not so by others. Or walking naked in the street. Who knows, maybe there's something you find offensive which others don't. E.g. suppose someone spits on the sidewalk in front of you? Suppose someone takes a shit on the sidewalk in front of you? Suppose someone skips the queue in front of you? Suppose someone dumps their trash on your lawn (no violence there)? What about road safety? Suppose in your new libertarian paradise there are still cars. Well, according to your argument, my car is my car, and no-one can impose that my car must be tested and found roadworthy before I can drive it. Then, by accident, 'cos I haven't checked the brakes in 10 years, I drive over someone's family. Whoops, sorry libertarians, but it's my car, my petrol, and you can't deny me the right to use them as I please.

Maybe in the future, people will think back and say "Ugghh, how disgusting, they used to enslave *animals* to do their work. Boy am I glad we're enlightened now." It's a reasonable supposition. Or "Ugghh, they used to eat *meat* *barrrffff*, I'm sure glad that's illegal now, it's so obviously *wrong*." Right and wrong can only be judged in the cultural and moral context of the *society* in which the action takes place - there is no absolute morality. As far as I understand, this is a well established philosophical principle (but don't ask me for a quote, I can't provide. Maybe some more learned bitcoiner can).

Quote from: FredericBastiat on August 30, 2011, 05:07:24 PM

Yes I've heard of this "social contract" you're referring to. Bring me the contract to review with my attorney present and I'll decide, after much deliberation, whether or not the terms of the contract suit me. If they (the terms) do not, I will go my way, back to my private property and continue to live my life as I see fit. Don't molest me, and I won't molest you. Fair enough?

If you're American, the social contract was proposed by the "founding fathers" in the 18th century and popularly accepted - back then they didn't have computers and couldn't possibly have conducted the interviews I suggested above. What they did was probably as reasonable as could be expected. I don't need to bring you the contract - all you have to do is get a copy of the constitution and all legislation since enacted, and decide if you like it, in the presence of your attorney if you prefer. If not, then inform the State Department that you no longer consent to be bound by them. Try it, really, I'd love to know how you get on.

Quote from: FredericBastiat on August 30, 2011, 05:07:24 PM

If they (the terms) do not, I will go my way, back to my private property and continue to live my life as I see fit. Don't molest me, and I won't molest you. Fair enough?

Great. But then, be sure not to use any state-provided water, any state-provided electricity, any state-provided health-care, any state-provided transport infrastructure, or any state-provided anything. Actually, don't even breathe the air that blows in from off your property, because that air is only breathable thanks to state regulations that prohibit your neighbour from constructiing [horrible polluting] industry right next to residential zones, even though it's his property. Believe me, I'd be more than happy if you went back to your private property and never came out but... something tells me it wouldn't last long.